Phillip Luke
Sinitiere (PLS): What is the main argument in After the Monkey Trial, what central points do you make about
modern evangelicalism and scientific thought?

Christopher Rios
(CR): My main
argument, simply put, is that the most prominent evangelical scientists of the
twentieth century actively resisted the antievolutionary movement that
developed after World War II. That is, between the 1950s and the 1980s, when
“creationism” came to dominate American evangelicalism and gained considerable
international support, a noteworthy group of evangelical scientists in both the
US and UK sought to demonstrate that Christianity and science, or more properly
theology and science, were not mutually exclusive categories that required acceptance
of one only by rejection of the other but were complementary ways of viewing
the world. My book thus furthers our understanding of how modern evangelicalism
was never monolithic in its view of science. Even when considering the mid
twentieth century, the attempt to define evangelicals or evangelical faith according
to a particular view of science is misguided.Clearly, no small number of evangelicals, especially fundamentalist
evangelicals, rejected evolution. Many did so for theological reasons, others on
scientific grounds. A few even claimed to demonstrate scientific evidence
against it. But as demonstrated by the groups that I wrote about, the American
Scientific Affiliation and the Research Scientists’ Christian Fellowship, other
evangelicals accepted and even advanced modern science, including evolution.

PLS: The birth of
the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), and a splinter group, the Creation
Research Society (CRS) in the US, was contemporaneous to the birth of the
Research Scientists’ Christian Fellowship (RSCF) in the UK. This seems to add a
crucial transatlantic component to the story. Yet it also occurred around the
same time that modern evangelicalism was undergoing tremendous intellectual
evolution, in essence what historian Molly Worthen has recently termed a “crisis
of authority” about the Bible, history, and modern life. Can you talk about
the intellectual currents of the mid-twentieth century that influenced these
scientific groups, all of which in one way or another attempted to live their
faith in relationship to modern intellectual life?

CR: Yes. The transatlantic bit of
this story is important, in part because of how it demonstrates the influence
one side had on the other, in part because of the way similar events on both
sides occurred without awareness of the other. This last point is best
explained by common cultural forces at work in both parts of the world. Let me
mention three.

First
was the culmination of the professionalization of science. The development of
modern science, of course, occurred over centuries. But there was an
acceleration of its professionalization from about the mid nineteenth century
to the mid twentieth.In nearly all the
fields, science became more esoteric, requiring an understanding of data and
methodology that put it beyond the reach of non-specialists. Yet whereas scientific
work moved behind the veil, its effects were front and center.From household conveniences to the awe inspiring
developments of modern warfare, science and technology touched nearly every
aspect of life.As a result, science
became the dominant authority for most of the modern world.How Christians viewed and interacted with it
thus became one of the major theological questions of the century.

Second,
as Molly Worthen has so eloquently described, the development of
neo-evangelicalism, with its desire to engage mainstream scholarship and
willingness to redefine some of its theological commitments, provided fertile
ground for those who wanted a more positive relationship with science. Debates
about the validity of evolutionary theory went hand in hand with debates about
the Bible’s inerrancy or questions about its historicity.

Third
were similar theological developments in the UK, where evangelical groups such
as Inter-Varsity Fellowship (today UCCF) attempted to reach a new generation of
university students by restoring intellectual respectability among both church
leaders and the laity. The RSCF, in fact, was founded as part of IVF and
remained so until 1996. These efforts were more systematic and encountered less
cultural resistance than those in the US, but there were still those in the UK
who rejected anything that resembled accommodation to the secular world. Significantly,
ASA and RSCF leaders denied the accusation that they were unjustly
accommodating their faith.Rather, they
were convinced that antievolutionism was not just bad science but also bad
theology, and they were helped on this front by new trends within
evangelicalism on both sides of the Atlantic.

PLS: Your book also
helps to historicize the development of what became known as creationist
science. Can you explain how its growth tracked alongside of social, political,
and cultural changes from the 1960s onward, and how this fits into your
rendering of a “new creationism”? What do you mean by a “new creationism”? In
this context, what made creationism enduringly attractive to some, while others
roundly dismissed it as religious propaganda? With these trends in mind, how
does your scholarship on science and religion help us to make sense of the
cultural meaning of the recent Bill Nye/Ken Ham “debate”?

CR: That’s a big question. Let me offer
two responses, and you can prod me about the bits I ignore. First, by “new
creationism” I mean an understanding of creation that was opposed to “modern
creationism”—the antievolutionary views that dominated American evangelicalism
from the 1960s onward. Several historians, most notably Ron Numbers, have shown
how individuals such as Henry Morris and John Whitcomb convinced a generation
that true Christian faith required antievolutionism. Prior to this period
“creationism” could refer to a variety of theological ideas, but beginning in
the 1960s the term became almost exclusively associated with antievolutionary
thought. Being a creationist meant that you rejected evolution. This idea won widespread
acceptance, especially in the US, in part because it confirmed what many
Americans within and outside evangelicalism assumed. But it was never
universally accepted, and ASA and RSCF leaders dedicated considerable energy to
refuting it. They saw themselves as creationists because they believed that God
created the world and they affirmed the truth of passages such as Genesis 1-3.But they were also scientists who affirmed
the scientific truth of evolution. Creationism, they argued, thus did not equal
antievolutionism. The new creationism I’m talking about, then, is evolutionary creationism, the acceptance
of both the biblical account of creation and the scientific understanding of
evolution.I hope readers will keep three
points in mind as they evaluate these groups. First, there’s little that’s
actually new about this view, or at least about the motivation for it. What
made it seem new was that most mid-century evangelicals had forgotten that
before the infamous Scopes trial of 1925, some of the most respected evangelical
theologians attempted to reconcile creation and evolution. Second, it’s
important to recognize that the ASA and RSCF were talking to both the churches and
scientific communities. The RSCF, in fact, was originally aimed primarily at
the scientific community. They assumed that science was a valid, meaningful
enterprise.Their message was that it
shouldn’t be an obstacle to faith. Third, the membership of neither group was
fully accepting of evolution. The leaders were often in agreement, especially
the RSCF, but dissenters existed in both organizations. In fact, some of the
most insightful debates occurred among the members themselves.

Second,
the attention given to the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate demonstrates and reinforces
the perception that Christianity and science are opponents. It also reveals the
limited success the ASA and RSCF (today called Christians in Science) have had
in spreading their message. More than making sense of the debate, my work
demonstrates that Nye and Ham represent a false dichotomy. Their positions aren’t
the only ones available. I was encouraged to read some of the social media
commentary on the event and see some frustration over the lack of a third
voice. The Nye-Ham debate also
perpetuates a conversation (if you can call it that) that misses the more
important questions. That one can believe in both creation and evolution is a
simple historical fact demonstrated by the many Christians who have done so. How
Christians have reconciled creation and evolution is the more interesting
question. How they read Scripture, viewed science, understood the relationship
between divine activity and natural laws—these are the more interesting kinds
of questions, ones that the public debates often miss, and ones into which I
hope my book offers some insight.

PLS: What projects
are you working on now?

CR: The major project underway is a
manuscript with the working title “Beyond Evolution.” In After the Monkey Trial, I wrote that both the ASA and RSCF became reluctant
participants in the creation/evolution debates. Both groups understood the
importance of the evolution issue, but its cultural popularity required them to
spend more time on it than either desired. Unlike other organizations that focused
almost exclusively on questions of origins, the ASA and RSCF sought to address
a much wider variety of subjects. My next book examines some of these issues,
including psychology, the environment, and philosophy of science. This last
issue, philosophy of science, was a perennial and explicit concern for the
leaders of the ASA and RSCF. While they never settled on an answer, their
attempt to affirm orthodox science and orthodox faith produced thoughtful views
of both. The others issues came up because they were important cultural
questions, and also because key leaders were prominent researchers in these
areas. R. J. (Sam) Berry, for example, was a noted ecological geneticist who
had considerable influence in both the Church of England and British
government’s response to environmental concerns. Malcolm Jeeves was an esteemed
research psychologist and admired evangelical scholar whose efforts to
reconcile Christianity and science has spanned over a half century.(I speak of these men in the past tense out
of habit. They’re both retired, but still contributing to our understanding of
science and religion.)

Comments

Phil, thx so much for this interview and thanks to Christopher Rios for

More than making sense of the debate, my work demonstrates that Nye and Ham represent a false dichotomy. Their positions aren’t the only ones available. I was encouraged to read some of the social media commentary on the event and see some frustration over the lack of a third voice.

Anyone could beat that wanker Ken Ham in a debate, even Bill Nye. Here's a third voice:

Q--You think those were not literal days? A--I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days. Q--What do you think about it? A--That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does. Q--You do not think that ? A--No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.

Darrow and Bryan, of course. That stupid movie is all America knows of any of this.